9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (2) TMI 254 - AT - Central ExciseEntitlement to the duty exemption under N/N. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997 for the goods supplied to the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) - HELD THAT - It is an admitted fact that the goods were supplied by the appellant without payment of duty since the institution to whom the goods were supplied are exempted from payment of duty under N/N. 10/1997-CE and they have also produced valid certificates from the competent authority as required under N/N. 10/1997-CE in support of their claim. Further it is found that as held by this Tribunal in appellant s own case 2016 (8) TMI 438 - CESTAT BANGALORE the items supplied by the appellant to Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA) a non-Commercial Research Institution under the administrative control of the Department of Defence Research Development of Government of India Ministry of Defence are eligible for the benefit of exemption under the N/N. 10/1997-CE dated 01.03.1997 as they have fulfilled the conditions for claiming the exemption benefit. Conclusion - The appellant are eligible for the benefit of exemption under the N/N. 10/1997-CE dated 01.03.1997 as they have fulfilled the conditions for claiming the exemption benefit. Appeal allowed.
ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS 1. Entitlement to Duty Exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The exemption in question is governed by Notification No. 10/97-CE dated 01.03.1997, which allows duty-free supply of goods to public-funded research institutions under certain conditions. The appellant cited a previous decision by the Tribunal in their own case, which supported their claim for exemption. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal examined whether the appellant had met the conditions stipulated in the notification, specifically whether the goods were supplied to a qualifying institution and whether they were used for research purposes. Key Evidence and Findings: The appellant provided certificates from ADA, confirming its status as a non-commercial research institution under the Department of Defence Research & Development of the Government of India. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had produced necessary duty exemption certificates as required. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the appellant had complied with the requirements of Notification No. 10/97-CE, as the goods were supplied to ADA, a qualifying institution, and were intended for research purposes. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the argument that the goods could not be used for research purposes due to their classification as parts of aircraft, emphasizing that the exemption applies regardless of the commercial classification if the goods are used for research. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the appellant is entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE, as they fulfilled all necessary conditions. 2. Qualification of Goods as Parts of Scientific Equipment/Instrument/Apparatus Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The notification allows exemption for parts if they are used as scientific equipment/instruments/apparatus by a research institution. The Tribunal referenced its own prior decision in the appellant's case, which had similar facts. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal assessed whether the goods supplied, such as ECFM-EU, Video cards, and CIU, could be considered as parts of scientific equipment for research purposes. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal noted the specific certificate issued by an authority not below the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government of India, certifying the goods for research purposes. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal found that the goods met the criteria for exemption as they were supplied for research purposes to a recognized research institution. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal rejected the lower authorities' argument that the goods' commercial classification as aircraft parts disqualified them from exemption, emphasizing the research purpose and institutional use as the key criteria. Conclusions: The Tribunal concluded that the goods qualify as parts of scientific equipment/instruments for research, thus eligible for the exemption. 3. Reliance on Certificate and Precedent Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The appellant relied on a certificate from a competent authority and a previous Tribunal decision in their own case. Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Tribunal considered the validity of the certificate and the applicability of the precedent. Key Evidence and Findings: The Tribunal found the certificate valid and noted that the facts of the current case were similar to the previous case. Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal applied the precedent, finding the appellant's situation analogous and thus entitled to the same exemption. Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Tribunal dismissed the respondent's reiteration of the impugned order findings, emphasizing the appellant's compliance with the notification requirements. Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the appellant's reliance on the certificate and precedent, affirming their entitlement to the exemption. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS The Tribunal established the following core principles:
Final Determinations: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, granting the appellant the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 10/97-CE, with consequential relief as per law.
|
